“Given the sheer breadth of the offence of fraud, the offence of theft could be abolished
without creating a gap in the criminal law’s protection of property.” Discuss
Basically I have to:
1. Set out what conducts fall under fraud
2. See if various conducts currently classified as theft would fall under fraud
3. See what fraud and theft have in common as well as where they differ
4. Set out that easy cases of theft would not be able to fall under fraud (like
pickpocketing)
5. Highlight that abolishing theft would abolish the theft act and therefore offences or
burglary and robbery would be left to be redrafted.
6. Thesis: fraud is not broad enough to include theft, therefore theft should not be
abolished.
7. Need both detail and creativity (which i am definitely capable of giving now come on
now)
Let’s plan this, shall we:
1. Which offences fall under fraud?
AR and MR: to make a gain, cause a loss or expose another to a risk of loss
intentionally and dishonestly.
3 ways of committing fraud:
S2: fraud by false representation
S3: fraud by failing to disclose information
S4: fraud by abuse of position
2. Would certain conducts currently classified as theft fall under fraud?
AR and MR of theft: appropriating the property belonging to another dishonestly
with an intention to permanently deprive.
I can already think of two cases of theft which could call under fraud: Morris and
Hinks.
However, very basic instances of theft would not fall under fraud per se.
3. Comparing fraud and theft:
Things in common: dishonesty requirement (Especially Ivey), gain aspect, intention
overall, MR seems to be similar on a basic level.
Differences: no cause of loss, and once again simple cases of theft wouldn’t fit under
fraud.
4. Easy cases would not fit under fraud:
a. Pickpocketting: clearly theft, but would it fit under fraud? Naur (develop that
under plan)
5. Burglary and robbery are satellite offences built on top of theft, rely on the theft act:
how can one redraft them, should they be included under fraud as well? Quite
confusing.
6. Thesis: fraud is not fit to replace theft, we been knew.
7. Detail and creativity…Right.
without creating a gap in the criminal law’s protection of property.” Discuss
Basically I have to:
1. Set out what conducts fall under fraud
2. See if various conducts currently classified as theft would fall under fraud
3. See what fraud and theft have in common as well as where they differ
4. Set out that easy cases of theft would not be able to fall under fraud (like
pickpocketing)
5. Highlight that abolishing theft would abolish the theft act and therefore offences or
burglary and robbery would be left to be redrafted.
6. Thesis: fraud is not broad enough to include theft, therefore theft should not be
abolished.
7. Need both detail and creativity (which i am definitely capable of giving now come on
now)
Let’s plan this, shall we:
1. Which offences fall under fraud?
AR and MR: to make a gain, cause a loss or expose another to a risk of loss
intentionally and dishonestly.
3 ways of committing fraud:
S2: fraud by false representation
S3: fraud by failing to disclose information
S4: fraud by abuse of position
2. Would certain conducts currently classified as theft fall under fraud?
AR and MR of theft: appropriating the property belonging to another dishonestly
with an intention to permanently deprive.
I can already think of two cases of theft which could call under fraud: Morris and
Hinks.
However, very basic instances of theft would not fall under fraud per se.
3. Comparing fraud and theft:
Things in common: dishonesty requirement (Especially Ivey), gain aspect, intention
overall, MR seems to be similar on a basic level.
Differences: no cause of loss, and once again simple cases of theft wouldn’t fit under
fraud.
4. Easy cases would not fit under fraud:
a. Pickpocketting: clearly theft, but would it fit under fraud? Naur (develop that
under plan)
5. Burglary and robbery are satellite offences built on top of theft, rely on the theft act:
how can one redraft them, should they be included under fraud as well? Quite
confusing.
6. Thesis: fraud is not fit to replace theft, we been knew.
7. Detail and creativity…Right.
